š
Original date posted:2015-06-16
š Original message:On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:15:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's simple: either you care about validation, and you must validate
> > everything, or you don't, and you don't validate anything. Sidechains do
> > not offer you a useful compromise here, as well as adding huge delays and
> > conplexity.
> >
>
> As noted to Adam last night - although I agree it adds complexity - side
> chains are one solution that will indeed help with scaling long term.
> Similar to the graph you see with git repos and merges, having aggregation
> chains that arbitrarily fork and then rejoin the main chain are both
> feasible and useful.
>
> That code & future is a ways away from production, so doesn't help us
> here. Still, let's not dismiss it as a solution either.
To be clear, it depends on what kind of sidechain.
My off-chain transaction notions are federated sidechains with an
economic incentive to not commit fraud using fidelity bonds; they were
definitely proposed as a scaling solution.
Merge-mined sidechains are not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a
scaling solution because they don't solve the scaling problem for
miners.
Some kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the
tree miners can mine is constrained to preserve fairness could be both a
scaling solution, and decentralized, but no-one has come up with a solid
design yet that's ready for production. (my treechains don't qualify for
transactions yet; maybe for other proof-of-publication uses)
Keep in mind that other than preserving mining
decentralization/resisting censorship, we've known how to scale up
blockchains for ages w/ things like (U)TXO commitments and fraud proofs.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150616/3fa76edc/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:37:47
in reply to nevent1qā¦3q86
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:47Event JSON
{
"id": "d1d37dee93b1236c677a2ba38900883fb0073207a9e7b76b73f2f165a4a4a1f7",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152267,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1eef2249ef2ccb9b29d0cfb214899c0200af52104249c9e48060be1ef0ababcc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ed50b9662c534f302526489a4568cb7c2db3ad694251a2a69498cce55eb50822",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-16\nš Original message:On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:15:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e It's simple: either you care about validation, and you must validate\n\u003e \u003e everything, or you don't, and you don't validate anything. Sidechains do\n\u003e \u003e not offer you a useful compromise here, as well as adding huge delays and\n\u003e \u003e conplexity.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e As noted to Adam last night - although I agree it adds complexity - side\n\u003e chains are one solution that will indeed help with scaling long term.\n\u003e Similar to the graph you see with git repos and merges, having aggregation\n\u003e chains that arbitrarily fork and then rejoin the main chain are both\n\u003e feasible and useful.\n\u003e \n\u003e That code \u0026 future is a ways away from production, so doesn't help us\n\u003e here. Still, let's not dismiss it as a solution either.\n\nTo be clear, it depends on what kind of sidechain.\n\nMy off-chain transaction notions are federated sidechains with an\neconomic incentive to not commit fraud using fidelity bonds; they were\ndefinitely proposed as a scaling solution.\n\nMerge-mined sidechains are not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a\nscaling solution because they don't solve the scaling problem for\nminers.\n\nSome kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the\ntree miners can mine is constrained to preserve fairness could be both a\nscaling solution, and decentralized, but no-one has come up with a solid\ndesign yet that's ready for production. (my treechains don't qualify for\ntransactions yet; maybe for other proof-of-publication uses)\n\nKeep in mind that other than preserving mining\ndecentralization/resisting censorship, we've known how to scale up\nblockchains for ages w/ things like (U)TXO commitments and fraud proofs.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150616/3fa76edc/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "f742596ddab5857465cb322a5c6934e387404f230ccb134a9d58e82b472afa095e04779f0a9299775cbe5c71e0442975aca40167765dd9a4bb786c7aff000964"
}